1 September 2013

The following is part of a letter the Mujlisul Ulama wrote to a brother who queried the Islamic concept of Taqleed.

(1)
It should be remembered that the senior Imaam, namely, Imaam Abu
Hanifah was in touch with Sahaabah. He had acquired their Islamic
knowledge from Sahaabah as well as from numerous such senior Scholars
who had studied under the Sahaabah. Thus, he were in close proximity to
the age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Secondly, the protection of the Quraan and Islam were undertaken by Allah Taala Himself. He declares in the Quraan:

"Verily, We revealed the Thikr (Quraan) and We are it Protectors."
Thus the preservation of Islam is a Divine Responsibility. At no stage
in the history of Islam was there a time that the full Shariah was not
available. Islam was perfected during the time of Rasulullah (sallall~hu
alayhi wasallam). The Quraan is emphatic and explicit in making this
claim. It is, therefore, Islamically unimaginable that the full and
perfect Shariah did not exist with the illustrious Scholars until a
couple centuries later when Imaam Bukhaari (rahmatullah alayh) appeared
on the scene. Imaam Bukhaari appeared about 120 years after Imaam Abu
Hanifah and about 200 years after Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi
wasallam). During this period, i.e. during the absence of Imaam
Bukhaari, the Deen was flourishing. Every aspect of Islam was known to
the Scholars. Nothing was hidden and unknown.

It is a ludicrous
and a kufr supposition to assume that part of the Shariah was concealed
from or unknown to the Salf-e-Saliheen of the first epoch of
Quroon-e-Thalathah (The first three noble ages of Islam), and that the
supposed ?unknown portion became known only after Imaam Bukhaari
(rahmatullah alayh) appeared on the scene 2 centuries later. This
supposition is kufr because it militates against the Quraanic
declaration of:

Thirdly, Imaam Bukhaari and the other Muhadditheen who compiled the
Ahadith in book form did not do so for the benefit of the existing
Scholars or for the Scholars before his time. The Scholars before his
era were illustrious Fuqaha and Muhadditheen who were the direct
students of the Sahaabah or of the Students of the Sahaabah. The
Scholars of his time were his (Imaam Bukhaaris) Ustaadhs and these
Scholars were the Students of the Taabieen who in turn were the Students
of the Sahaabah. Thus, it was Imaam Bukhaari who benefited from these
illustrious Ustaadhs, not the other way around. The compilations of the
Muhadditheen were for the benefit of posterity)for the Muslims of later
generations. The Scholars before Imaam Bukhaari and those during his
time were not at all reliant on his compilations. They were completely
independent of the Hadith compilations of the later Muhadditheen. The
authorities on which the Scholars (Fuqaha and Muhadditheen) before Imaam
Bukhaaris time relied were Taabieen and Sahaabah. Their knowledge of
Islam was firsthand and did not depend on compilations and books. Their
Ilm was from the Taabieen whose base of knowledge was the Sahaabah who
were Rasulullahs (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) Students. The nonsense
gorged out by the modernist and deviant Salafis of this age who blindly
follow the half-baked so-called scholar, Al-Albaani is thus
self-evident.

Fourthly, it is a well-known fact that the
teaching of Imaam Abu Hanifah as well as of the other Imaams (Fuqaha)
was that if an authentic Hadith is acquired with which his ruling
conflicts, then such a ruling should be discarded and the ruling stated
in the Hadith be accepted. It was made clear that the Math-hab of the
Hadith was his (i.e. Abu Hanifahs) Math-hab. Thus, if and whenever any
of the Scholars who followed Imaam Abu Hanifah acquired a Hadith which
in their opinion their Ustaad did not know of, immediately the ruling of
the Ustaad on the specific issue would be adjusted to conform to the
Hadith. But, this process of adjusting such rulings which could have
been in conflict with the Hadith on account of all the Ahadith not
having reached a particular Imaam, ended long before Imaam Bukhaari
presented his compilation. We, therefore, find the Mutakh-khireen (i.e.
the Hanafi Fuqaha of the third and fourth centuries) adhering to the
rulings which the Hanafi Fuqaha of former times had issued despite them
having the knowledge of all Compilations of Hadith prepared by the
Muhadditheen. This in itself, is explicit evidence for the fact that the
Fuqaha before Imaam Bukhaari were already fully apprized of the various
Ahadith which the later Muhadditheen compiled in their Books.

Undoubtedly, the Sahaabah had scattered throughout the Islamic empire.
But, long before the Hadith compilations of Imaam Bukhaari, the Scholars
had already become aware of the Ahadith narrated by the different
Sahaabah. The age adjacent to the age of the Sahaabah was an age of
intense Islamic learning. The entire Shariah with its jurisprudence
(Fiqh) was systematized and codified long before the age of the
Muhadditheen. Such systematization and codification are impossible
without a total knowledge of Hadith because Hadith is the Tafseer of the
Quraan. Without Hadith, there can be no Shariah. Thus, the Shariah
which the Fuqaha had systematized was the Shariah which the Sahaabah had
acquired from Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). Just as the
Sahaabah were not reliant on written books for the knowledge and recital
of the Quraan, so too the next group of Scholars (the Taabieen) was not
reliant on any book of Hadith for the systematization of the Shariah.
Just as the Sahaabah had the Quraan in their memories, so too did the
Taabieen have the Ahadith in their memories. Islamic history bears ample
testimony to this incontrovertible fact.

The
aim of the Muhadditheen was to sift out the narrations and to prepare
books of authentic compilations for the benefit of posterity just as was
the aim of the Sahaabah when they had compiled the Quraan in book form.
The aim was not to benefit the Sahaabah because they were not in need
of a book or a written compilation of the Quraan. They had the Quraan in
their memories. The Sahaabah had compiled the Quraan in book form for
the benefit of posterity.

From
this it should be realised that Imaam Bukhaaris compilation was not for
the benefit of the existing Scholars as they were in fact the
instructors of Imaam Bukhaari. It is quite possible that the Fuqaha and
Muhadditheen prior to Imaam Bukhaari had greater knowledge of Hadith and
had a greater advantage in regard to the knowledge of authentic Hadith.
The chain of narrators between Imaam Bukhaari and the Sahaabah is very
long. In view of numerous narrators in a chain on account of the large
time gap, it is possible that a Hadith which was authentic according to
Imaam Abu Hanifah or Imaam Maalik became weak in terms of the standard
employed by Imaam Bukhaari. Imaam Maalik heard a Hadith directly from
the lips of a Sahaabi. The authenticity was most perfect. However, the
same Hadith could have reached Imaan Bukhaari two centuries later in a
slightly different form or in the same form but with a long chain of
narrators. Some of the narrators may not have passed Imaam Bukhaaris
strict test, hence he would be compelled to classify the Hadith as weak
whilst in actual fact it is an authentic Hadith. Thus, if Imaam Abu
Hanifah, for example, bases a ruling on the strength of a Hadith which
according to Imaam Bukhaari is a weak narration, the ruling of Imaam Abu
Hanifah cannot be rejected on the basis of the designation given to the
Hadith by Imaam Bukhaari because Imaam Abu Hanifah and all the early
Scholars would not formulate rulings on suspect narrations nor were they
reliant of the type of categorization of Hadith formulated by the later
Muhadditheen.

(2)
It is baseless to claim that the Math-habs came into existence in the
middle of the 8th century of the Christian era. People who lack
understanding in the Deen make such preposterous allegations. Since the
Scholars taught nothing other than the SUNNAH of Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam), it is incorrect to claim that the Mathaahib were later
accretions. It is inconceivable that the Fuqaha taught anything which
was not taught by the Sahaabah. Yes, new rulings on new developments had
to be formulated. But, such rulings were based on the principles
enshrined in the Quraan and the Sunnah. The Fuqaha simply arranged
everything in systematic order. The differences in the various acts of
Ibaadat, for example, had all existed during the very time of Rasulullah
(sallall~hu alayhi wasallam). The Scholars did not introduce the
different ways we find in the acts of worship of the followers of the
Mathaahib. Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah had
adopted these ways and forms which were passed on to the succeeding
generation, viz., the Taabieen who in turn passed it on to the next
generation.

The
problem the Fuqaha had was to establish which way and which manner of
the Holy Nabi (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah were the
final acts abrogating former acts. In such issues differences arose.

Quraanic and Hadith interpretations had to be resorted to for finding
solutions or the clear-cut rulings of the Sahaabah who had happened to
be the Ustaadhs of a particular line of Scholars, were adopted.

Whatever
had happened and whichever way was adopted, it is absurd to claim that
?numerous of the Hadith which reached Imaam Bukhaari did not reach the
Fuqaha and that the Mathaahib had been formulated on the basis of
insufficient Hadith narrations. Such a claim is utterly baseless. In
fact, it militates against the explicit Quraanic declaration:

"This day have I perfected for you your Deen..."

When a Scholar acquires the knowledge of an authentic Hadith, he does
not dismiss that Hadith simply because the Hadith conflicts with the
ruling of the Math-hab he happens to be following. He first examines the
standard of the Hadith. If it is established that the Hadith is Saheeh
(Authentic), he fully accepts it as being authentic. A man who rejects
an authentic Hadith commits kufr. He is not a Muslim. If there are no
Quraanic and Hadith proofs to conflict with the authentic Hadith which
he has acquired, he immediately adopts the ruling of the Hadith and sets
aside the ruling of the Math-hab which was earlier formulated on the
basis of insufficient proof and facts. But, if there is strong and
overwhelming Quraanic and Hadith evidence conflicting with the authentic
Hadith which he had just acquired, he is forced to assign suitable
interpretation to the Hadith and while accepting its authenticity, he
cannot issue a ruling on its basis. But, this process had applied during
the age of the Fuqaha in the age of the Taabieen when the Sahaabah were
involved in spreading the Deen. It did not apply to the age after Imaam
Bukhaari. It must be categorically stated that the Fuqaha had the
knowledge of all the Ahadith which are today found in the various Hadith
compilations. In fact, they had greater knowledge in the field of
Hadith authenticity and in view of there being hardly any links between
them and the Sahaabah.

(3)
All the Usool of the Mathaahib were formulated on the basis of the
Quraan and Hadith. Those Scholars who followed the Usool of a particular
Math-hab were obliged to adhere to the Usool. They could differ in the
Furoo (details). But, the Furoo which they formulated were based on the
same Usool. Such differences largely pertain to new developments, not to
clear teachings which were acquired from the Sahaabah.

The
Usool were established by the Founding Imaams. Their students adopted
these principles and formulated rulings for new developments on the
basis of the principles established by their senior Ustaadhs.

(4)
While Ijtihaad in the principles is no longer permissible, Ijtihaad in
new developments will remain valid until the Last Day. There will always
be new developments. The Usool established by the early Fuqaha on the
basis of the Quraan and Sunnah are all-encompassing. It is not possible
to create any further Usool because such an attempt will be in conflict
with the Quraan and Sunnah. Any new attempt will be beyond the confines
of the Quraan and Sunnah. Hence no one has ever ventured to establish
new Usool. If today anyone attempts, his kufr will be transparent as the
conflict between his conjectured ?usool and the Quraan will be
conspicuous. Nowadays people simply resort to baseless interpretation
(Taweel Baatil) to gain acceptance for their Baatil views.

(5)
New issues and new developments do not require any new Usool. The very
same Usool which the early Fuqaha had extracted from the Quraan and
Sunnah are the only basis on which rulings for new issues have to be
formulated. Discardence of the USOOL of the Fuqaha is tantamount to
discardence of Islam.

(6)
Yes, Scholars who were students did differ with their illustrious
Ustaadhs in matters of Furoo. While both the Ustaad and the student
would argue a certain issue (fara) on the basis of the same principle
which the Ustaad had established, they would sometimes come to different
conclusions. This is essentially the result of difference in
understanding, difference in taqwa, difference in their respective bonds
with Allah Taala. And, it could be the result of differences in their
respective experience pertaining to the issue. Also sometimes, the
Student will differ with the ruling which was issued by the Imaam
because circumstances had changed)new facts had come to light which had
not existed at the time the Imaam had issued his ruling. In short, there
were a variety of factors which determined differences in rulings
inspite of the rulings being based on the same Usool. Take for example
the issue of shrimps. This is a masala pertaining to the Furoo. All the
Hanafi Fuqaha are agreed on the principle that of the sea animals only
fish is halaal. There is no difference in this principle. However, some
Hanafi Ulama have ruled that shrimps are permissible while the
overwhelming majority states that shrimps are haraam. Those who say that
shrimps are permissible, do not reject the principle. But, in terms of
their knowledge they claim that shrimps are fish, hence, halaal. They do
not claim the permissibility of shrimps on the basis of the principle
of another Math-hab. Simply on account of their knowledge of shrimps,
which they believe to be fish, they state that shrimps are halaal. They
thus do not differ in the principles.

(7)
The Scholars never reasoned that all possible issues were already
addressed and that there would be no longer need for formulating rulings
on later developments. The unanimity is in the closing of the doors of
Ijtihaad in respect to the Usool, not to new developments which
obviously will come into being from time to time. But, the principles
are established already for the formulation of the rulings necessary to
categorize new issues and developments.

(8)
The Shari meaning of Taqleed, means to follow a particular Imaam in all
matters pertaining to the Shariah. Ittiba means to follow in obedience.
one may accept the Taqleed of a particular Imaam without applying
ittiba in practical life. Example: A man making Taqleed of Imaam Abu
Hanifah, accepts and believes shrimps to be haraam. But, when he goes to
a friends home (who may not be a Hanafi), he eats shrimps. He says that
he follows (makes Taqleed) of Imaam Abu Hanifah and that he knows the
view of Imaam Abu Hanifah is correct and that he accepts this, but
simply to appease his friend he eats shrimps. Thus, while making
Taqleed, he is not making ittiba.

(9)
In all ages there were people of baatil who attempted to subvert the
Deen. This process of conflict between Haqq and Baatil will endure as
long as the world endures. The conspiracies of baatil are more rife and
rampant in our day. Almost every Tom, Dick and harry who has studied
some Hadith translations of has a couple of kuffaar university degrees
behind his name thinks himself capable of making Ijtihaad in even the
Usool. May Allah Taala save us from such deviation.

(10)
The Fuqaha of the early times did not close the Door of Ijtihaad in
respect to the Usool because unqualified persons attempted to make
inroad into this domain. The Doors were closed because they were 100%
certain that no new Usool can any longer be established since the Usool
which they had established were all-encompassing. For such certitude a
very high degree of Taqwa and spiritual elevation are imperative. These
men were not only men of book knowledge. Their knowledge was true
knowledge which is a Noor (Celestial Light). The Islamic definition of
Knowledge given by the illustrious Ulama is:

"ILM (KNOWLEDGE) is a Noor in the heart of the Mumin. The Noor is acquired from the lanterns in the Niches of Nubuwwat."

True knowledge initiated from the heart of the Nabi and it passed on
from breast to breast. From the breast of the Sahaabah to the breasts of
the Taabieen, and so on until it has reached us. Such Noor enters the
heart only after the Bond with Allah Taala has been rectified, developed
and solidified.

(11)
A Muqallid who claims to follow the Sunnah while differing with the
ruling of his Math-hab deceives himself by believing that he is
following the Sunnah. Following the Sunnah is not possible beyond the
confines of the Math-hab. The authorities of the Math-hab were fully
aware of the Ahadith which allegedly conflict with the rulings of the
Math-hab. They had the necessary knowledge pertaining to such affairs.
It is, therefore, a shaitaani deception for the Muqallid, especially
weak Muqallideen such as us in this belated age, to believe that we are
following the Sunnah while we reject the rulings of the Aimmah.

(12)
The opinions of the Aimmah do not contradict the Hadith. It is our
limited knowledge and total inability which make us believe that the
opinions of the Aimmah conflict with certain Ahadith. There are valid
and Shari explanations and interpretations for any apparent conflict. We
in this day are not in position to fully understand all the different
facets which had produced the opinions of the Aimmah. The reliable
Ahadith are not rejected. They are accepted, but the relevant facts
pertaining to the reliable Hadith in question are stated.

(13)
Any difference which the Students of Imam Abu Hanifah had with him on
issues of detail, e.g. raising the hands, etc., was not in conflict with
the Usool. While they were of such standing that they could resort to
such differences in view of the on-going process of Hadith transmission
in their time, we in this time cannot act in the same way on the basis
of our defective knowledge of Islamic sciences. We simply have to follow
the rulings of the Jamhoor of the Math-hab.

(14)
The incumbent duty of the Muqallid is not only Taqleed, but Ittiba. We
have to make Ittiba of the Jamhoor of the Math-hab. If we dont, we are
bound to fall into deviation. The first step into the path of deviation
is to abandon Ittiba. once shaitaan has made us accustomed to abandon
Ittiba, the ground will become fertile to reject Taqleed. The modernist
Salafis have fallen into this Satanic trap.

(15)
It is dangerous for the masses to seek answers from the Books of Fiqh
in which appear Ikhtilaafaat (difference of opinion) and Dalaa-il. The
masses on account of lacking totally in higher Islamic knowledge will
become confused. They should adhere to books which teach the masaail for
practical purposes.

(16)
Without following a particular Math-hab, a person is bound to stray
into deviation. He will follow his desires. It is, therefore, incumbent
to follow a Specific math-hab.

(17)
Picking and choosing rulings from the different Math-habs, is the
product of desire. The nafs constrains a person to adopt such an
exercise. No Math-hab permits this. However, when there is a real need
for adopting a ruling of another Math-hab, the Ulama will study the
circumstances and incorporate such a ruing into the Math-hab on the
basis of the Usool of the Math-hab. Picking and choosing at random and
desire is to trifle with the Deen. Such trifling can lead to the
destruction of Imaan.

(18)
An exercise to unify the Math-habs will imply the initiation of a fifth
Math-hab. Since the rulings of the Math-habs are based on Dalaa-il and
certain Dalaa-il are the product of interpretation, unification is not
possible. There are and will always be differences among the Scholars
who are Muqallids of the same Math-hab. Furthermore, such an attempt is
uncalled for. Differences in the Math-hab never lead to disunity and
conflict. Ignorance leads to disunity and conflict. We are taught to
respect all the four Math-habs. Although we are followers of the Hanafi
Math-habs, we always insist that followers of the other Math-habs adhere
strictly to the ruling and teachings of their respective Math-habs. The
belief of the followers of all Math-habs is that the Four Math-habs are
on the Haqq because their basis is the Quraan and the Sunnah. While
conceding that errors are possible and that errors in opinion have been
committed, no Math-hab can be branded as baatil or in deviation.
Rasulullah (sallall~hu alayhi wasallam) said:

"The differences of my Ummah are a blessing."

Such differences existed among the Sahaabah also. These differences of
the Sahaabah were inherited by the Students of the different Sahaabah,
hence the differences in the Math-habs.

The
Math-habs do not advocate sectarianism or antagonism among the
followers of the different Math-habs as the deviant, anti-Math-hab
Salafis of this age claim. We see such antagonism only in the ranks of
the ignorant ones. If the Shaafi performs Witr in his way and the Hanafi
in his way, what is the need for antagonism? Some of our friends are
Shaafi Ulama for whom we have great respect and love. There is
absolutely no ill-feeling. No sectarianism. No antagonism. But, jahl
(ignorance) is an evil disease.